KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus HITECH ELECTROTHERMICS AND HYDROPOWER LTD.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 10-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
A 
V. 
HITECH ELECTROTHERM!CS AND HYDROPOWER LTD. 
AUGUST 10, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKR!SHNAN AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 137-Reappreciation of evidence 
in a review petition-Scope of-Held: lt is not within the domain of Review 
Court to reappreciate evidence-Once the Court records finding of facts on 
appreciation of evidence and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot 
C 
be assailed in review unless it is shown that there is error apparent on the 
face of record-To pern1it the review petitioner to argue on a question of 
appreciation of evidence would an1ount to converting a review petition into 
an appeal in disguise. 
Government of Kerala had announced Industrial policy offering D 
concessional rate of tariff and electricity duty to new industries for a 
period of five years from the date of commercial production, if the 
production commenced between 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1006. Respondent was 
denied the benefit of Industrial Policy. It preferred a Writ Petition before 
High Court which was dismissed on the ground that since the respondent 
E 
had not started commercial production before the date specified in the 
Government's policy, it was not entitled to the benefit. The appeal preferred 
by respondent was dismissed. Thereafter respondent came up in appeal 
before this Court. This Court considered documents on record and held 
that the respondent had been communicating with the Board seeking 
power connection at an early date so that it could start commercial 
F 
production by 31.12.1996. But there was inaction on the part of the 
Electricity Board in providing electrical energy to the respondent. In the 
given circumstances this Court held that the respondent was alteast 
entitled to concessional tariff for a period of 3 years instead of 5 years 
as indicated in the Industrial Policy as that would meet the ends of justice. G 
Against this, Electricity Board filed the present review petition. 
Dismissing the review petition, the C~urt 
HELD: The respondent had been denied power supply by the Board 
in appropriate time which prevented the respondent from starting the H 
517 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
commercial production by 31.12.1996. This is a finding of fact recorded by 
this Court on the basis of appreciation of evidence. In a review petition it 
is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different 
conclusion, even if that is possible. The appreciation of evidence on record 
is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the 
B 
c 
evidence produced, the Court records a finding of fact and reaches a 
conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it 
is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for 
some reason akin thereto. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a 
question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review 
petition into an appeal in disguise. [522-F-H; 523-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON : Review Petition (C) No. 238 of 
2003. 
IN 
D 
Civil Appeal No. 8322 of 200 I. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2001 of the Kerala High Court 
in W.A. No. 820 of 2001. 
T.L. Viswnatha Iyer and M.T. George for the Appellant. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Ramesh Singh, Arunabh Chowdhary, K.N. 
Karanjawala, Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Manik Karanjawala, K.R. Sasiprabhu 
and Ms. G. Indira for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. SINGH, J. : This review petition has been preferred by the Kerala 
State Electricity Board under Article 137 of the Constitut!cn of India seeking 
review of the judgment and order of this Court dated December 17, 2002 
passed in Civil Appeal No. 8322 of 2001 whereby this Court set aside the 
judgment and order of the Kerala High Court and partly allowed the appeal 
preferred by the respondent herein. 
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent herein claimed 
benefit of the Industrial Policy announced by the Government of Kerala 
offering the concessional rate of tariff and electricity duty to new industries 
for a period of five years from the date of commercial production, if the 
\ 
.. 
KERALA STATE ELECT SD.•·. HITECH ELECTROTHERMICS ANO HYDROPOWER LTD. (SINGH, J.J 5 J 9 
production commenced between 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1996. Admittedly the 
respondent herein did not commence commercial production before the 
specified date

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.